Page 234 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GCV/KAA P2: kaf
0521835356c07.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 21, 2004 16:24

The Three Models

and the closeness of the media to that system, is manifested, in other
words, not only in external pluralism but also in the fact that news cov-
erage centers more on the parties and their views – Semetko et al. found
that the agenda of election coverage followed more closely the parties’
own agendas in Britain – and in a generally greater attention to politics.
There is some evidence that this “sacerdotal” and party-oriented atti-
tude toward the political world has declined in recent years, in favor of a
more American-style coverage driven by journalists’ market-oriented
judgments of what makes a good story (Franklin and Richardson
2002).
In broadcasting, in contrast to the press, all four countries have strong
traditions of political neutrality. To a large extent, this has been a matter
of public policy. In Britain, both the BBC and the Independent Television
(ITV) companies are bound by requirements for impartiality and bal-
ance in news and public affairs. The actual practice of balanced reporting
of government and opposition dates from World War II, when Labour
was integrated into the government, eventually coming to power on its
own in 1945. In the early days of radio Britain was a one-party dominant
system and coverage of the Labour opposition was limited (Seaton and
Pimlott 1987, ch. 7). During election campaigns, both the BBC and ITV
have regarded the formula according to which the free broadcast time
was allocated to the parties (e.g., 5:5:4 for Conservatives, Labour and
Alliance in 1983) as a guide for election coverage (Semetko et al. 1991:
42–3). British broadcasting also has strongly manifested the “sacerdo-
tal” attitude toward elections, with BBC news expanding the broadcast
during election periods, as is the case with public broadcasting in most
of Europe.
In the United States, when the initial debates took place over the reg-
ulation of radio broadcasting, commercial broadcasters were successful
in arguing that they should control the airwaves because they served the
public as a whole, while nonprofit stations that institutions such as trade
unions, churches, and universities were trying to establish, were charac-
terized as “propaganda” stations, serving particular, sectarian interests
(McChesney 1994). Until the mid-1990s the Fairness Doctrine required
U.S. broadcasters to provide “balanced” coverage of controversial issues,
though the kinds of set political formulas that often govern the allocation
of coverage in European systems – especially during elections – did not
exist, and journalists exercised more discretion in judging the “news-
worthiness” of political events. Market forces have also pushed toward
neutrality in U.S. broadcasting just as they did in the press, as we shall

216